Groth16 vs Plonk: ZK-SNARK Proof System Selection

Specific advantage: Smallest proof size (~128 bytes) and fastest verification time. This matters for high-frequency on-chain verification where gas costs are critical, like in ZK-Rollups (e.g., zkSync Lite) or private payment systems.

Specific advantage: Relies on well-studied cryptographic assumptions (DLP, q-PDH). This matters for high-value, production systems where security audits and long-term stability are non-negotiable, such as Zcash's original shielded transactions.

Specific advantage: Single, reusable trusted setup (e.g., Perpetual Powers of Tau) for any circuit. This matters for protocols requiring agility, as new circuits (like new DApp logic) can be deployed without a new ceremony, enabling ecosystems like Aztec and Polygon zkEVM.

Specific advantage: Supports custom gates and efficient recursion natively. This matters for complex, evolving applications like general-purpose zkEVMs (Scroll, Taiko) or privacy-preserving smart contracts that require non-arithmetic operations.

Specific disadvantage: Requires a new, secure multi-party ceremony for each unique circuit. This creates operational overhead and risk for teams that need to frequently update their application's logic, making it less suitable for rapid iteration.

Specific disadvantage: Larger proof size (~400-800 bytes) and slower verification than Groth16. This matters for ultra-scalable L2s where every byte of calldata on Ethereum L1 translates directly to user transaction fees.

Unmatched efficiency: Produces the smallest proofs (~200 bytes) and fastest on-chain verification in the industry. This matters for high-frequency L2 settlement (e.g., zkSync Lite) and applications where gas cost per verification is the primary constraint.

Major operational overhead: Requires a fresh, secure multi-party ceremony (MPC) for every new circuit or logic change. This creates deployment friction and ongoing ceremony maintenance risk, making it less agile for rapidly evolving dApps or protocols with many custom circuits.

Single, reusable trusted setup: The 'Powers of Tau' ceremony is circuit-agnostic, enabling rapid prototyping and deployment of new logic without new ceremonies. This matters for application chains (e.g., Aztec, Polygon zkEVM) and teams that prioritize developer velocity and future-proofing.

Native support for custom gates and recursion: Enables more efficient complex circuits (e.g., SHA-256) and recursive proof composition for zkRollup validity proofs. This matters for building sovereign zkRollups or protocols requiring proof aggregation (e.g., bridging).

Verification cost trade-off: Proofs are significantly larger (~400-800 bytes) than Groth16, leading to higher on-chain verification gas costs. This matters for high-throughput, cost-sensitive applications where marginal gas fees directly impact user economics.

Choose Groth16 for: Production systems where the circuit is stable, performance-critical, and gas minimization is paramount (e.g., a dedicated token bridge).

Choose Plonk for: Development-heavy environments requiring flexibility, recursion, and the ability to upgrade circuit logic without new trusted setups (e.g., a general-purpose zkEVM).

Specific advantage: ~10x faster proving times for fixed circuits. This matters for high-frequency applications like private transactions on Zcash or Aztec where latency is critical. The proof size is a constant ~200 bytes, minimizing on-chain verification costs.

Specific limitation: Requires a new, secure MPC ceremony for every circuit change. This creates operational overhead and security risk. This matters for agile development teams (e.g., dApp builders on Polygon zkEVM) who need to iterate quickly on logic.

Specific advantage: A single, universal trusted setup (like the Perpetual Powers of Tau) supports any circuit up to a bounded size. This matters for ecosystems like Scroll or zkSync Era, enabling seamless deployment of new smart contracts without new ceremonies.

Specific advantage: Supports custom gates and recursive proofs natively. This matters for complex, stateful applications like zkRollups (e.g., Starknet's recursion layer) and privacy-preserving identity protocols (e.g., Worldcoin), allowing for more efficient circuit architectures.

Specific limitation: Proving is typically 2-5x slower than Groth16 for equivalent circuits. This matters for user-facing applications where proof generation time directly impacts UX, such as in-browser zk-proofs for gaming or authentication.

Specific limitation: Proofs are larger (~400-800 bytes), increasing on-chain gas costs for verification. This matters for high-volume, low-value operations on Ethereum L1, where every byte impacts economic viability.